Fox "News" not our friend

Maybe I'm naive, but I had the expectation that Fox is "conservative" and would therefore be supportive of firearms owners. They are, I guess, but only as a shock or whine item for an article or show to make a buck. Otherwise there is a constant drumbeat of "shootings, shootings, shootings", "gun bans, gun bans, gun bans" in their presentation much more than that "progressive" CNN, San Francisco Chronicle and other similar sources.

Neither of the major shock jocks (Rivera, O'Reilly) really like the idea of firearms in personal ownership. Rivera is a self involved fool--as I've found out in direct email correspondence--and bigoted against firearms owners.

If you enjoyed reading about "Fox "News" not our friend" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Shadow 7D

January 6, 2013, 02:51 AM

Nope, I have found that the DAILY SHOW (and yeah, I know his leanings, but at least he has some humor) to be more balanced on guns than the factor.

Kiln

January 6, 2013, 02:54 AM

O' Reilly is a huge idiot and his presence is one of the definitive moments when it is time to change the channel.

I get all of my news online. At least there I can sift through all the bullcrap and find actual news that is devoid of political agenda.

Texasrpbrock

January 6, 2013, 02:54 AM

The sad pert is they are capitalizing on the gun control issue like all of the other media outlets are doing. If it gets ratings and sells more advertising, they'll report on anything good or bad. With all of us glued to the TV watching the events evolve, they see it as a prime opportunity to increase viewership. I wouldn't be surprised if ad rates have gone up because of the issue.

Keep fighting for our rights. It's not over till the fat lady sings. Hopefully we'll eventually win this battle. The sooner the better. Ammo has become a more valuable commodity than gold or silver.

Guy B. Meredith

January 6, 2013, 03:09 AM

Yes, for much of the media it is about a dollar, but Fox is incessant. I just don't see as much on other outlets I would have thought to have and agenda. Or maybe the silence is to avoid alarming firearms owners into action.

YankeeFlyr

January 6, 2013, 03:36 AM

Uh-oh...all the Righties that thought that the FOX mouthpiece was gonna stand up for them finally saw The Light!

Fox "News" was created for a pointedly conservative agenda (according to its founder) but is now only in it for The Big Money! It's all entertainment, folks!

Too bad for Hannity, too! Almost (but not quite) makes me ashamed to be Irish...

YankeeFlyr

January 6, 2013, 03:41 AM

Or...

There may be another motive (although I doubt it, seriously)...FOX "News" (I can't hardly type that without laughing :neener: ) actually put a real introspective approach into a news article/subject and followed it to its logical conclusion. WOW!

We'll see.

HorseSoldier

January 6, 2013, 04:57 AM

Fox "News" was created for a pointedly conservative agenda (according to its founder) but is now only in it for The Big Money! It's all entertainment, folks!

+1. Pre-Fox News the US media had slanted left since the Vietnam era. Fox News found a niche by slanting the same stories to the right or running stories that catered to politically conservative viewers. But it's still the same "it bleeds, it leads" story lines, not a redefinition of the media which has degenerated into info-tainment and the bizarre modern American confusion of the categories of "victim" and "hero," which even a decade of war with plenty of real honest to God heroes running around hasn't done much to dislodge.

In regards to reporting on mass shootings, Fox could have really redefined things by focusing on the stories out there where private citizens, off duty cops, prompt police response, etc., stopped or pinned down psychos with guns until overwhelming force arrived and kept the body count low.

But the problem with that is that people wouldn't care and wouldn't tune in -- Fox and every other network pump tons of money into market research and if stories about people who just manned up, showed up, or stood up when it was go time played well with viewers, there'd be more of them on the air. I suspect market research has found that stories about every day people, more or less just like the viewer, rising above and beyond in danger don't resonate with viewers because those stories make a lot of people feel inferior about their own boring lives. A mass shooting with lots of traumatized witnesses/survivors -- A) people feel lucky they weren't there, and B) get off on the evil at the petting zoo aspect as the face and life story of the latest perpetrator is splashed all over the place.

As a species we haven't changed a bit since the days when Roman military parades did not just include the winning side, but included hordes of enslaved foes and the other side's leader paraded to his execution if they could manage it. We live in a world where there are some wolves, some sheep dogs, and a whole lot of sheep -- and the sheep don't thrive on stories where the wolves get denied their drama by prompt response by sheepdogs (whether professional or volunteers who rise to the moment).

kwguy

January 6, 2013, 05:02 AM

It's true. None of the television based "news entertainment cabals" have the interests of the rights of firearms owners at heart (and it's not just OUR rights, it's their rights too). CNN, FOX, MSNBC (that hurt just typing it) are not friends of the 2nd amendment to say the least. They are simply biased "Propaganda Organs" (FOX just thinly veils it's bias, except for Hannity, who is the only one who actually understands firearms, from what I have seen). Even online, it's heavily biased, but at least online you will see more stories and editorials that reflect the facts and truths of the matter. They just don't make it onto television. Cable news is not our friend. Not. At. All.

Pilot

January 6, 2013, 05:10 AM

Yep, it is all "Info-tainment", sadly even Fox News, whom I thought 15 or so years ago was a breath of fresh air in a totally left leaning medium. Rupert Murdoch is as anti (legal) gun as the next foreign lib, but I's sure he loves the illegal guns that create the "news" his organizations cover.

radiotom

January 6, 2013, 08:11 AM

It's not just gun control, there are only a couple people on Fox News that actually seem to authentically understand conservatism/libertarianism, And none of them are anchors...

22-rimfire

January 6, 2013, 08:20 AM

Geraldo Rivera has always been very liberal and has always been supportative of more stringent gun control laws. His views did not change when he went to work for Fox and nor should they. "To thine own self be true."

O'Reilly doesn't seem to have a clear attitude on the subject.

Intrepid Dad

January 6, 2013, 08:42 AM

I don't watch O'Reilly that often but I did see his show with Bob Costas. At that time O'Reilly made the argument that people in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting would have been better off if they had had their own gun.

Who knows, maybe he really believes that or maybe it was just for ratings.

chevyman097

January 6, 2013, 08:44 AM

Main stream media is not our friend. None of them.

hso

January 6, 2013, 08:50 AM

The fact that Fox is not the friend of firearms owners has been apparent for a long time. They may bring someone on from time to time that informs the public of the facts, but the rest of the time continue to promulgate the lies of the Antis and have no coherent pro language.

Sam1911

January 6, 2013, 08:56 AM

News should not have ANY agenda. Not "ours" - not "theirs." Therefore, nothing we're getting off the television qualifies as worth watching as news. And from being forced to observe a few minutes of it each week I can't imagine a media product LESS focused on providing facts and encouraging thoughtful contemplation of the surrounding issues than TV "news" as it has become.

I don't need news commentators to defend my agenda, and I don't need them to interpret events for me. If I was invested in these people's opinions, I suppose I'd be disappointed or feel betrayed, but having watched even a few moments of what they do for a living I wouldn't want them to read me the weather...or tell anyone else how I feel about it.

Plan2Live

January 6, 2013, 09:22 AM

I watch TV news in the morning while getting ready for work so I have some idea of what is going on in the world. It's a little hard to surf the Internet and get dressed at the same time so I use the TV. Several years ago I switched to Fox in the mornings. My observations with the morning crew and my ranking on wether they are gun friendly or not are as follows;

Alisyn Camerota - HECK NO. Has said only LE and Military need access to scary black rifles.

Getchen Carlson - No.

Brian Kilmeade - mostly no.

Steve Doocy - more consistent Yes.

Tucker Carlson - BIG YES.

KTXdm9

January 6, 2013, 09:30 AM

News should not have ANY agenda. Not "ours" - not "theirs." Therefore, nothing we're getting off the television qualifies as worth watching as news. And from being forced to observe a few minutes of it each week I can't imagine a media product LESS focused on providing facts and encouraging thoughtful contemplation of the surrounding issues than TV "news" as it has become.

I don't need news commentators to defend my agenda, and I don't need them to interpret events for me. If I was invested in these people's opinions, I suppose I'd be disappointed or feel betrayed, but having watched even a few moments of what they do for a living I wouldn't want them to read me the weather...or tell anyone else how I feel about it.
Amen. I love how get their panties in a bunch over Fox News, probably because it disrupts their regularly scheduled liberal brain washing by the rest of the media. Breaking news...all news casts are biased! All of them are in it to make money! Details at 10. Look beyond the obvious and think for yourself.

Cesiumsponge

January 6, 2013, 11:01 AM

It's not just gun control, there are only a couple people on Fox News that actually seem to authentically understand conservatism/libertarianism, And none of them are anchors...

The only two that come to mind are no longer there or shadowed by the "stars" of the network. Judge Andrew Napolitano was great when he hosted the cancelled Freedom Watch. Also add in John Stossel. He didn't make any friends when he worked on ABC, and was considered too conservative there. He doesn't really fit in at Fox for being "too liberal". That guy used to be a liberal consumer reporter on ABC decades ago but turned into a staunch Libertarian and has been consistently upsetting the news network for decades now. He was going against the grain and running pro-2A stuff on ABC's 20/20 primetime. It's depressing to see Fox waste his talents by occasionally pitting him against Bill "Tides Go In" O'Reilly.

I agree that "news" should not have any agenda and prior to 24 hr news channels (pre-CNN), the "news" was often news but selectively provided on TV due to time limitations. Vietnam was a classic "reporting" with a biased slant. The result was GI's coming home from the war were spit on in airports.

The 24 hr cable channel news are decidely opinionated about the 2A topic, politics, social topics and so forth. They are paid to give their opinions or lead discussions where topics are discussed.

The closest thing to "fair and balanced" is in fact Fox News and I think CNN is trying to present a more balanced approach to news discussions in an attempt to gain viewers and ratings.

xfyrfiter

January 6, 2013, 11:25 AM

Al Jazeera, is probably more factual than all the msm bunch, including faux news.

poboy6

January 6, 2013, 11:27 AM

cnn.com has had some surprisingly balanced articles lately. The asked why people would want to own "assault" weapons and posted their reasons without too much commentary.

Al Jazeera, is probably more factual than all the msm bunch, including faux news.
I actually agree with this. Despite the "scary sounding" name, I routinely read their pieces on Al Jazeera America. It's much less fluffy opinionated crap and more factual and to-the-point than anything written by most American newspapers or the BBC.

danez71

January 6, 2013, 11:35 AM

Maybe I'm naive, but I had the expectation that Fox is "conservative" and would therefore be supportive of firearms owners.

No offense..... but Yes, Thats naive to think that.

People need to STOP thinking that any political party is either pro or anti 2A.

CraigC

January 6, 2013, 11:47 AM

Reporters are like career politicians, they only care about their own agenda and the world would be a better place if they were all at the bottom of the ocean.

ApacheCoTodd

January 6, 2013, 12:37 PM

The fact is that the "old" days of journalism are like any of the good-old-days... They never were.

All journalism is and always has been an issue of varying points of view and it has always been on the consumer to introduce a touch of skepticism into the conveyance from one person to another of the observation of an event.

Where in the past a news organization might try to lead the consumer in directions of thought they are now just as likely to try to stay ahead of the lowest common denominator's mindset in protecting revenue.

It's really only good parenting (certainly not public education or the university system) that will keep the next generation of mush-minds form accepting everything electronically projected as gospel.

Face it, when weather (God's own sand box) and financial and economic (fer cripe's sake, it's MATH!) get editorialized to steer public opinion, who's to say what is safe from the brain-benders in the news organization's board rooms.

Guns? They'd love to get traction with this issue like they did with; global warming, tobacco, nuclear power, asbestos, dioxin contamination and now fracking.

rswartsell

January 6, 2013, 12:40 PM

Do some research on Rupert Murdoch,

Yeah the guy that got his tit caught in the wringer in the UK for illegal wiretapping, etc.

Don't confuse a slimy Aussie meglomaniac with an American patriot.

Tommygunn

January 6, 2013, 12:44 PM

Fox "News" not our friend

It was never their purpose to be "our friend." Their purpose is to make $$$$.
They do it by trying to be more "center." To a large extent they succeed. They were charged with being too right before and that's why Geraldo now works there.
O'Reilly has tempered his hoplophobia in the aftermath of the Katrina Confiscation fiasco but, no, he doesn't really "get it."
Geraldo....what can I say about a twit who "endorsed" Roney but voted for Obama?
He's very very full of himself....and nature abhores a vacuum.
So it stuck him on Faux Snews......

I agree. I've been surprised at the even handling of some stories on CNN recently and the two or three episodes of Cooper's "Keeping Them Honest" I've seen have been interesting.

I have admired John Stossel ever since I became aware of him on 20/20, but I think he's stretched his current show's premise thin and become "libertarianism as entertainment" to some extent. I would prefer that he find more red meat.

When O'Reilly is putting on his show I can see in his mannerisms and wording what appear to me to be cues that he is ultimately uncomfortable with carte blanche firearms ownership and buys into some of the stereotypes.

And I REALLY wish we could get over calling these anti firearms people liberals. They are liberals only in the sense of a DBA phoney business name.

Kim

January 6, 2013, 02:41 PM

Problem number one is these so called journalists know nothing about firearms. Their bias has been on full display the last several weeks. They have not even tried to be unbiased. They have pushed the agenda of gun control. Never even considering the other side. Pure propaganda. They all repeat the same questions that are one-sided. They get alot of their talking points from left wing blogs. I can read the news 2-3 days before by reading blogs. I remember when John Kerry lost to Bush. Chris Matthews was lamenting the loss and wondering if the Democratic Party was just going to be known as the party of Abortion. The MSM was wondering if they needed more diversity in their reporting----meaning from the fly-over country perspective. That has all been blown away and the left agenda is in full swing now. I said left not necessarily Democratic. Matthews even admitted he voted for Bush the first time then he got all caught up in the anti-war movement. He was pro the wars then made a hard left turn back to his 1960's roots. I am so glad I missed the crap of the 1960's.

blaisenguns

January 6, 2013, 02:50 PM

:banghead:There was an interveiw of an ex Marine on either MSNBC, or CNN and it made me sick. This dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers newswoman was interveiwing this guy and treating the man absolultly disrespectfully. She talked down to him like he was a criminal, the man served our country! All these people have a bug up their you know what about guns. I dont get it, they are completly ignorant on the subject!:cuss:

Dr.Rob

January 6, 2013, 06:10 PM

Tucker Carlson was on Fox this morning in some debate or other (I was heading out the door) hear him say 'blaming the tools criminals use to commit crimes is juvenile' and 'it's been tried and shown to be inefective and had no change in the crime rate'

Never cared for his bowtie, but he seems to be a pro 2A, pro GUN person.

jcv

January 6, 2013, 06:47 PM

I don't think many people would have even heard of "Fast and Furious" and the Congressional investigations if not for Fox news.

leapfrog

January 6, 2013, 06:58 PM

Tucker Carlson was on Fox this morning in some debate or other (I was heading out the door) hear him say 'blaming the tools criminals use to commit crimes is juvenile' and 'it's been tried and shown to be inefective and had no change in the crime rate'

Never cared for his bowtie, but he seems to be a pro 2A, pro GUN person.
yup saw that and he also said all those submitting bills don't have any idea of what a gun is all about, he was rather upset that so many are calling the 223 a powerful cartridge and draws comparison to a 30-06.

jcwit

January 6, 2013, 07:18 PM

I believe one of the greatest problems we have in this country, not only regarding guns but with many areas of life. We have 2 classes/types, call it what you will, in this country. Those that live in the cities and have an entirely different outlook on life and how things should be run from those in the urban/rural areas.

Liken it to the fur industry, those in the city saw fur trapping and farming as terrible and inhumane, so the fur industry suffered, basically putting an end to trapping and fur farming. So what happens now, folks in the country see many more animals road killed and for every one they see how many more manage to make it a short way into the field and die a lingering death. What have we accomplished? Not much!

This same holds true for the shooting sports. Two different outlooks. I subscribe to the rural one, and am glad I'm old.

Guy B. Meredith

January 6, 2013, 08:49 PM

Yeah, I saw a bit of some show I'm not familiar with on Fox this morning and it seemed completely sane. Then I see this linked in among the top items on their web site:

Well, the good thing is Fox news says all gun control polls are statistically skewed to inflate the number of gun grabbers among likely voters. Fox is predicting a pro 2A route of all gun restriction bills now lined up in congress like Boeing heavies in an ice storm at Kennedy. That is good for us, right? :)

Dmath

January 6, 2013, 10:25 PM

Okay, I've only posted here a handful of times, so I may get squashed for wading into this little discussion, but here goes.

First, I was a real, actual reporter with a major metropolitan daily newspaper, the Star Tribune of Minneapolis, for a lot of years. At our largest point, about 1999, we had a staff of over 400 people -- reporters, editors, photogs, library researchers, illustrators, and all. I am pretty sure that fewer than 12 were gun owners. (And fewer than 10 voted for Bush in 2000; most voted for Gore, Nader, or the Socialist Worker's Party guy.) Most of my friends work at the paper. But almost everybody on the staff thought I was downright weird for owning a gun. At one point, one woman reporter was very upset with me and accused me of not being objective in a story I wrote about the NRA convention in town. I was insufficiently anti-NRA for her taste -- and for the paper's taste as well, since they spiked the story I wrote and substituted one by a staffer who hates guns and gun-owners. I left the paper in 2001.

Now to my point: Will somebody please offer some actual examples of Fox News being anti-gun-rights? I mean something concrete, something specific. The claim that Rupert Murdoch is anti-Second Amendment is not an example of Fox being anti-gun. Bill OíReilly being a blowhard does not make Fox anti-gun. The fact that Geraldo Rivera is a preening fop doesnít make Fox anti-gun.

What is even better is she used measured, logical, rational arguments that are hard to refute, rather than rhetoric that would seen extreme to non gun owners.

Guy B. Meredith

January 6, 2013, 11:03 PM

Dmath,
My original post was not that Fox is anti gun, but they are not supportive or helpful. There is a constant drumbeat in their headlines of bad situations where firearms are involved and sensationalistic exploration of the events.

They constantly stoke the fires and just don't let it rest or offer enough balance--though the article I site above about the Georgia mother protecting her children does some bit to rectify that.

kwguy

January 6, 2013, 11:27 PM

Fox may profess to be "fair and balanced", but when you have Bill O'Reilly or Geraldo Rivera spouting inaccuracies about "heavy weapons" and "automatic weapons" and the misuse of the "assault weapon" terminology, and saying how these should not be in the hands of civilians, that's not fair and balanced, they're putting their opinion in there. I don't believe that an opinion editorial is actually news, is it? It's just that: Opinion.

Like Lonehunter said, Fox is the most right leaning, but they are still not "for" firearms. And by putting out inaccurate info, that makes them "anti". Thanks Bill O and Geraldo R, thanks a lot.

BHP FAN

January 6, 2013, 11:46 PM

''I don't think many people would have even heard of "Fast and Furious" and the Congressional investigations if not for Fox news....

Jcv got this is exactly right. All you Fox bashers forget that the other ''news'' agencies are pretty much extensions of the White House Press Corps. or should I have said ''corpse''?

Guy B. Meredith

January 7, 2013, 12:06 AM

Unfortunately, the Fast and Furious also further demonizes EBRs. Credit for showing lack of credibility in the people involved, though.

anchorman

January 7, 2013, 12:34 AM

Well, the good thing is Fox news says all gun control polls are statistically skewed to inflate the number of gun grabbers among likely voters. Fox is predicting a pro 2A route of all gun restriction bills now lined up in congress like Boeing heavies in an ice storm at Kennedy. That is good for us, right? :)
no, because they are usually wrong about, well, pretty much everything. That's what fox is good at.

Shadow 7D

January 7, 2013, 12:45 AM

No,

FOX is conservative cause when Murdoc looked at the market, he saw there was a un tapped market, has NOTHING to do with his politics and little to do with cooperate, rather everything to do with selling commercials...

as for the bashing, well, if they stopped putting anti's an apologists on, we would have nothing to bash...

CharlieDeltaJuliet

January 7, 2013, 12:47 AM

No mainstream media or news station is our friend. We need a nightly news program on the Sportsman or Outdoor Channel.. Or even an NRA channel on cable and satellite, that offered world news and current events in the evening. Plus all of the shooting sports programs we could watch... Heck, I'd pay $10 a month just to watch it. If they did a discount for members it would be even better...

I know, I know it is a dumb idea, I just cannot get enough of the current "good" firearms shows (TacTV,Guns & Ammo..etc not the reality crap). It was just a dumb idea , but I would be a happy camper..lol..

csa77

January 7, 2013, 12:51 AM

If I cant get it off talk radio or certain internet news sites then it isnt worth knowing. I have never been a fan of fox news (isle crossers)...and I wont even consider the following as anyhting but state run/drive-by media cnn,abc,nbc,msn,cnbc,npr ect.

arizona_cards_11

January 7, 2013, 12:53 AM

Fox news only seems 'conservative' because you're comparing it to the alternative. Unfortunately, they tend to miss the historic conservative, pro-liberty position on most events.

The only show worth watch was 'The Freedom Watch' on Fox Business; but, now that it's been shutdown, Fox has relatively little to offer.

toivo

January 7, 2013, 01:09 AM

Rupert Murdoch also owns the New York Post. Here's their take on things:

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/01/07/ave4y8ep.jpg

hang fire

January 7, 2013, 09:21 AM

Murdock the CEO of FN is dead set against the 2nd Amendment, and fecal matter runs down hill from the top.

I have noted more and more how FN touts reasonable gun laws, as if there were not 20,000 already on the books now.

If gun free zones are so safe, why are prisons the most dangerous institutions in America?

Highland Ranger

January 7, 2013, 09:52 AM

Guns in the hands of the people is against the interests of all the elites - that includes politicians, media, Hollywood et al - not good when the peasants can shoot back while you are trying to herd them somewhere for their own good.

People from those groups who are pro gun are either those for whom it is a political reality ( can't get elected or lose their audience being anti gun) or the far smaller group who truly believe it is a right.

CharlieDeltaJuliet

January 7, 2013, 10:13 AM

Thanks Johnny Dollar, appreciate that... You guys are right about Murdock. He at one point was outspoken about a world without guns...

If anyone finds an unbiased news network, pass it along... I have to get my news from the Internet, mainly to keep from having an aneurysm. Maybe one day...just maybe, we will be able to hear the truth, without a personal spin on it.

Cosmoline

January 17, 2013, 12:26 PM

It's important to keep this in perspective. TV news and TV in general is fractured and controls a shrinking part of the public attention. There are videos of cats throwing up that have more viewership than even major TV shows now. And indeed if you want honest views about guns or any political issue, the place to go is youtube not any TV show. My own YT channel has only some very boring videos I put up to see recoil and check my stance, yet has to date managed to garner 179,608 views! That's a channel where the most exciting thing is a short video of me eating a half-foot oyster on a dare. I have one video I did to compare recoil with a Detective Special that has over 60,000 views. That's more than some "hit" cable TV shows.

The only people I know who watch FOX on a regular basis, or any TV news, are my 70-something parents. Most of the extended family is post-TV now. My sister's family has a video game WII setup in the basement and only use a TV for the occasional DVD. Not because they're against TV but because there is simply no interest in it. The kids never seemed to miss it. I personally haven't had a working TV since the late 90's. And the only time I see FOX news is visiting the parents. They watch O'Really religiously. I encourage them to go out and play video games but they just don't show much interest in healthy recreation like that ;-)

Pointshoot

January 17, 2013, 12:55 PM

Lots of good comments. Fox was the last of the mainstream media that I turned off. I don't watch any of them today. IMO theyre just the other side of the 'left' vs 'right', 'Dem' vs 'Repub' illusion that takes up peoples attenton and energy. Unfortunately, I have relatives who get all their 'news' from them still.

AlexanderA

January 17, 2013, 02:02 PM

Yet, TV cable news is disproportionately watched by so-called "opinion leaders." You can't be a "political junkie" unless you watch this stuff. In turn, the "opinion leaders" influence the rest of us.

Hacker15E

January 17, 2013, 08:42 PM

"conservative" and would therefore be supportive of firearms owners.

Big, big logic fallacy, and not just in terms of news stations.

Not all RKBA advocates are conservatives, not all gun control advocates are liberals.

hso

January 17, 2013, 08:47 PM

Hacker15E scores a bullseye!

Lazy thinking trying to oversimplify things to pro gun = "conservative" and anti gun = "liberal" or foolish assumptions about party affiliation and gun rights will lead to our loosing our rights.

traderpats

January 17, 2013, 10:37 PM

O'Rielly is turning out to be just another anti-2A POS. He's stated repeatedly that national gun registration is "reasonable" as is banning 30rd mags. <deleted> that left-wink SOB all to hell and back....

jerkface11

January 17, 2013, 10:42 PM

People need to STOP thinking that any political party is either pro or anti 2A.

One of the major parties has gun control as part of it's platform. The other simply doesn't care.

Hacker15E

January 18, 2013, 06:01 PM

One of the major parties has gun control as part of it's platform. The other simply doesn't care.

There are plenty of Republican politicians and voters who are perfectly willing to sell out "a little" of the RKBA.

There are plenty of Democrat politicians and voters who see the RKBA as a civil right that is just as important to protect as all of the others.

There are friends and enemies on both sides of the aisle. To ignore that is to seriously damage the cause of RKBA.

CharlieDeltaJuliet

January 18, 2013, 07:41 PM

You also must remember jerkface, the democrat party has only had anti gun politicians in it for a couple or few decades. There are many who are older than the lines that people are trying to draw. I promise, there are many,many pro gun democrats. The south has a ton of them...

Fastcast

January 18, 2013, 08:41 PM

What's sad is how long it has taken so many to realize FN and O'Really are bad news!

They're as much propaganda as any other boobtube news.....If you haven't shut off your MSM-TV news over (at least) the last 5 years and are not solely filtering the happenings of the world today from the web, you're part of the problem, not part of solution. :scrutiny:

Alaska444

January 18, 2013, 09:06 PM

The battle of the "morons," O'Reilly and Tom Arnold give their views on gun control on the View.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Fg4q1Vzxs

Anger

January 18, 2013, 09:11 PM

Op, you're so right. I'm going to start watching msnbc to get my news from now on, thank you so much !

LemmyCaution

January 18, 2013, 09:21 PM

The right isn't necessarily pro-RKBA, and the left is necessarily anti. Keep an open mind and don't view everything as a giant Manichaean conflict.

Alaska444

January 18, 2013, 09:27 PM

To put it On the Record, we can count on these Fox News anchors,hosts and personalities to stand up for the Second Amendment,IMO. I've been watching FNC closely since 1998 and know the quirks of their Staff quite well.

There are 21 names. Search the rest of the Main and Cable Networks for similar minded 2A supporters. Try to find a half dozen. It won't by easy.

Give me 20 from every other MSM outlet combined and I'll get you Super Bowl tickets in New Orleans on the 50! :D

Now put up or shut up,pronto. Supplies are limited. :scrutiny: You have one hour. :evil:
+1, Fox as bad as it can be at times is way ahead of the rest of the pack that are in the left's pocket. Great list of 2A supporters. Thank you.

jerkface11

January 18, 2013, 09:28 PM

There are friends and enemies on both sides of the aisle. To ignore that is to seriously damage the cause of RKBA.

And yet what I said was true. One party has gun control as part of it's platform and the other one doesn't care.

9thchild

January 18, 2013, 09:30 PM

I find it comical that people think one main stream media outlet is somehow different than another. They are owned by the same people and have the same agenda.

Modern day "conservatives" believe in perpetual war, regulating personal habits, and are just as willing as their "opponents" to spend the fake money. Nothing conservative about any of that. Time to realize the two parties are one and move forward.

Anger

January 18, 2013, 09:48 PM

I find it comical that people think one main stream media outlet is somehow different than another. They are owned by the same people and have the same agenda.

Modern day "conservatives" believe in perpetual war, regulating personal habits, and are just as willing as their "opponents" to spend the fake money. Nothing conservative about any of that. Time to realize the two parties are one and move forward.

Move forward. Lol. Where did I hear that term in the last 2.5 months? Sheesh.

Alaska444

January 18, 2013, 10:08 PM

Only 15 minutes left. Not one pro-gun name on any other MSM outlet put forward yet. :what: The tension builds. :cool:
You the man fo sua. Can't argue with you comment.

Gordon_Freeman

January 18, 2013, 10:46 PM

Great job on listing all those names on Fox Johnny. Hannity is doing great work for our side lately.

Greenmachin3

January 18, 2013, 10:48 PM

FastCast is right on. Televised news is going the way of the dinosaur. More and more people are looking to online and more importantly independent sources to critically think their way to the truth.

Those who blindly absorb the news from any of the big televised new outlets are really disempowering themselves big time.

The owners have bet on both horses so to speak.

Guy B. Meredith

January 19, 2013, 12:29 AM

There are some good people at Fox, Stossell being one of my favorites. The problem has been their sensationalistic approach in the headlines.

Ignition Override

January 19, 2013, 12:45 AM

Despite specific misinformed summaries broadcast by O'Reilly, at least FoxNews made a continuous effort to publicize the criminal operations of
Eric Holder's "Fast And Furious", and the unnecessary tragedy of our brave citizens in the Benghazi embassy/annex.
Not to mentions some other issues, many of which are barely covered by certain networks.

And Fox has Nobody harping so often (if at all) against the AR-15 as Mr. Morgan on CNN. Sure, the internet is always here for news, but many people find tv channels informative and entertaining, a decent background for popcorn.
Channels such as MSNBC ("The NRA has blood on its hands..."), and CNN must be refreshing for many viewers.
Along with many conservatives, Fox also has several liberals as regulars, along with libertarian Stossel.

As for most of CNN, MSNBC-no thank you. And aside from the major issues, my impression Was...that most, or many of you guys/gals liked the AR-15 etc, and supported the NRA or other pro-gun rights organizations.

mrvco

January 19, 2013, 01:19 AM

Fox News has one agenda and that is to keep as many of you watching as long as possible to maximize their ratings and keep the ad dollars flowing and growing.

When CNN (much maligned for being left of center) was really the only game in town, Rupert Murdoch looked at the 24x7 news-entertainment landcape and saw an untapped opportunity to cater to, foment and steer the other side of the "us vs. them" public political game.

You won't see Fox News step off the main-stream RNC (or DNC counter) talking points (and if any of their talent does head off the reservation, they certainly don't last long). They've proven that reality time and time again with their treatment of Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano and pundits on the right (or left) who don't tow the main-stream line.

Water-Man

January 19, 2013, 01:30 AM

Dollar,

It's Jeanine Pirro and Dana Perino.

Solo

January 19, 2013, 01:39 AM

True,Ignition. There is at least is a semblance of balance at Fox. MSNBC's cast is like the ensemble for Henry VIII's coronation. There won't be much arguing with the King there!You'll find more fair and balanced coverage at the Daily show than Fox.

BHP FAN

January 19, 2013, 01:51 AM

Anyone who saw Hannity tonight can have no doubt who our friends are. I get a laugh out of FOX bashing so called ''gun owners''. My bet is that they're all Liberal Trolls.

BHP FAN

January 19, 2013, 02:00 AM

watch and learn...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k97ZpQ6UmZY

BHP FAN

January 19, 2013, 02:02 AM

So, I guess the NRA isn't our friend, either?

Solo

January 19, 2013, 02:04 AM

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/09/the-d...ontrol-debate/
Ah, an interesting article. Let's see... you've quoted the introduction, so there's no need to talk about that. Let's move on to the rest of the piece.

The Comedy Central host slammed right-wing conservatives for blaming “non-gun causes of gun violence” after recent shootings; he showed clips of pro-gun pundits blaming video games, Hollywood and even personal sin instead of discussing ways to address gun violence directly.
Let's be honest. There is no evidence linking violent videogames, movies, media, books, and etc with violent behavior. Lack of belief in God/gay marriage/premarital sex/etc are also not likely causes of shooting sprees.

He compared the gun control issue to drunk driving, pointing out the decline of these deadly vehicular incidents and arguing that the same change can be made to the gun culture through tighter and better enforcement of laws.
This... is actually something we have said ourselves.

To Stewart, the root of the problem is Americans being afraid the government will take away their firearms, noting Alex Jones’ epic pro-gun rant.
“Now I see what’s happening,” Stewart said. “So this is what it is. Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present.”
Jon Stewart does not understand the need to prevent possible confiscation of guns in the future. He is a man with liberal biases.

But really, if that's the worst he's said on the subject, he's still better than O'Riley.

mljdeckard

January 19, 2013, 02:09 AM

So, you're saying Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner have the same agenda?

BHP FAN

January 19, 2013, 02:10 AM

Johnny...''pathetic California subject''? I never called you names. I was stationed in Florida for four years, and never met anyone, anywhere in the South, with your manners...or lack thereof.

Solo

January 19, 2013, 02:15 AM

Johnny Dollar, all you did was link to a MSNBC article which failed to show Jon Stewart having an extreme position on gun control. The worst he does is from the article's description is mock people he considers paranoid. I know words hurt, but if the most he did was make fun of people for their belief in government gun confiscations, that's not revealing some sort of massively biased reporting.

I don't mean to tell you how to argue your points, but you would have probably had much more success if you'd linked to his interview with General McChrystal (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jan/09/retired-gen-mcchrystal-opens-daily-show-video/).

mljdeckard

January 19, 2013, 02:19 AM

Somewhere back in there someone said that all the news is owned by the same person with the same agenda.

BHP FAN

January 19, 2013, 02:20 AM

'' just paid for 4 THR members to become NRA members. What have you done lately?''

Bought a Life Membership.

BHP FAN

January 19, 2013, 02:24 AM

Where did I say anything about anyone other than FOX...I was talking about FOX bashers...specifically. what are you talking about?

BHP FAN

January 19, 2013, 02:26 AM

''Fox is quite pro gun..''

Which is what I was saying. I think we may be argueing from the same side. Which would be hilarious.:cool:

Alaska444

January 19, 2013, 02:42 AM

Johnny Dollar, all you did was link to a MSNBC article which failed to show Jon Stewart having an extreme position on gun control. The worst he does is from the article's description is mock people he considers paranoid. I know words hurt, but if the most he did was make fun of people for their belief in government gun confiscations, that's not revealing some sort of massively biased reporting.

I don't mean to tell you how to argue your points, but you would have probably had much more success if you'd linked to his interview with General McChrystal (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/jan/09/retired-gen-mcchrystal-opens-daily-show-video/).
A couple of issues,

First, most of these late night political/comedian entertainers fulfill the role of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals mocking their opponents. Jay Leno is the only one that openly bashes the Dems and Obama without fear. The rest of the lot are overwhelmingly propagandists for Obama and his gaggle of henchmen.

RULE #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Secondly, anyone that has spent any time in the military has heard many rumors and outright protestations against our constitution from very high level military rulers. Failing to understand that a 4 star general is a POLITICAL position places the anti-gun stance in perspective.

A predecessor of General McChrystal was General Franks. Franks called for the repeal of the constitution back in 2003.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html

So, not sure what you wish to show with a left leaning political satirist like Jon Stewart interviewing a political member of our military (retired) that is looking to redeem his reputation after being outed in his criticism of Obama.

BHP FAN

January 19, 2013, 02:42 AM

You bet! may the wind be always at your back...g'nite...

Robert

January 19, 2013, 09:32 AM

5 pages is enough for this one.

If you enjoyed reading about "Fox "News" not our friend" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!